That’s why I asked what trajectories you’d like tested
If possible, I would like to see a 35 degrees climb angle with target elevation of -12.5, for 110nm
For falsifiable part, my hypothesis is that this will yield a similar time on target in 110nm tests, but with higher impact velocity.
For 22km down range tests, same loft param, but launch it at a target that is further away so that the missile does not try to dive so early. The hypothesis is down range number will be smaller and closer to 22km while missile still travels ~26km through air.
And please.
I am trying to see if this is true or false: there are multiple trajectories that has almost the same numbers (time to hit, down range, etc.), but with differing impact velocity.
Which, by existing definition, multiple trajectories will be considered “accurate”, which it can’t be (actually, can it?).
Thus, if this point is true, we cannot say Aim-54 is accurate, since there is no data on the impact velocity (which helps ruling out some shapes of trajectory). We can only say Aim-54 in game matches some known numbers; while the shape of trajectory may or may not be correct.
1 Like
I will remind “some” people not to post just for the sake of being augmentative…
Take personal disputes to PM and keep it there… Our Forum is not your playground…
The “Some” I mentioned will know who I am talking about…
5 Likes
I’ll conduct the test with new parameters this weekend.
1 Like
What is the source from? The requirements were for a 440 pound rocket motor so is this the MK60?
Nozzle diameter mentioned does not match what is seen in photos of XAIM-54A, YAIM-54A, or AIM-54C.
I would like to discuss, but I will refrain from posting numbers from the document until we know it is safe to share… appears to me that it is the original DCS evaluation of the MK60 motor?
1 Like
So it is a in-depth analysis of the propulsion units characteristics but where did most of the variables come from?
I wonder the same (about the name of the document), the schematics looks very detailed, appears to be genuine, and appears to be part of a technical doc related to the rocket motor.
That link also has picture related to the solid rocket motor of AMRAAM too (page 58), including the shape of propellant inside the solid rocket motor which helps determining the thrust curve
2 Likes
We already have comprehensive documentation on the AIM-120A’s thrust curve. The in-game model is using this data.
1 Like
Well, it seems they are working off public data and came very close to the (now) known numbers of the AIM-120 prior to them being publicized or referenced. Depending on the quality of their sources, they may have accurately ascertained the thrust of the motor.
1 Like
Can someone explain to me in quick words why the Phoenix in DCS is great and manuverable while it’s absolutely trash in War Thunder? Also did they nerf it or the F-14 radar in the last micro patch? My radar keeps glitching out like crazy when firing in tws.
1 Like
DCS missiles can two-plane maneuver, while WT missiles are forced to only one-plane maneuver.
Apart from that the AIM-54 probably has way less drag in DCS so it gets up to speed fairly quickly.
Which variant is the more realistic one? Could it be Gaijin artifically nerfing it to reduce the crazy whine it would cause if it worked like in DCS?
2 Likes
I have absolutely no idea if either missile is closer to the real weapon.
We’re unlikely to ever find out how the AIM-54 performed IRL with concrete data until the missile becomes completely obsolete and Iran has to totally retire their old F-14 fleet.
This being said as advanced mid-range ARH are coming, AIM-54 should be given more performance to compensate. If gaijin ever decides to stop having multipath be a crutch for bad players, of course.
3 Likes
It seems capable to shoot down surface skimming anti-ship missiles with a 100% intercept rate and it can shoot down target drones pulling high-g manuevers irl with tons of claimed Iranian successes against Iraqi fighter targets using the early 54A variant with a worse seekerhead than the C and especially late C variants.
In War Thunder with the latest micro patch 8/10 phoenixes will miss, before the patch they actually hit if people did not properly dodge.
1 Like
I did it again!
Now I have the only two 6 phoenix kills clips ever recorded in WT(I think). Took me nearly 2 years of playing the F-14A/B to have the first, and now I got the 2nd in just a few weeks.
I don’t think the aim-54 is trash, it can be frustrating to use but you can definitely make it work if you know what you’re doing, I still use it as my main weapon over the sparrow. I wish Gaijin would give it its full capabilities though.
4 Likes
It’s just super unreliable and can still completely fail without user error, for seemingly no reason.
Nice clips though
1 Like
At what range does the Phoenix go active, y’know, assuming its working as intended? Or does it go active off the rails?
Seeker detection ranges in war thunder are simplified. The numbers in-game are arbitrary due to lack of concrete information. The real world performance would differ based on target, altitude, etc.
If you want to know the performance in-game, we can view the file data;
As you can see from the “receiver” section… the detection range for a target with a radar cross section of 2 meters squared in-game is approximately 16000 or 16km. The maximum range regardless of target RCS is 25km. There are many other factors that affect (reduce) the detection range but it will never be more than 25km for any type of target unless they change the maximum range code.
The biggest contributing factor to this abstraction is probably the use of both a fixed RCS value(should vary with apparent Aspect and radar band), and the fact that they for the most part are basically arbitrarily assigned to any given airframe.
3 Likes
The C should go active from the rail, The A needs to get closer, sadly I don’t remember how close.